Wednesday, July 10, 2013

At the UN, the Vatican obstruct women’s rights throughout the world

Updated March 4, 2014

Read our new blog:  Pope Francis the CON Christ. Pretender & Impostor of Jesus. Merlin hoax CANNOT CLONE JESUS or dogs

Our latest  related article about New Jersey "Bling"  Bishop Myers

One of the biggest Vatican Deceits that Pope Francis uttered was about women in this phrase (after his rock-star trip to Brazil):  “Mary is more important than Bishops and priests, and therefore women are also more important than Bishops and priests”.  Nothing could be further from the truth because the Vatican uses its ultimate powers at the United Nations to obstruct and suppress women’s rights throughout the world as explicated in several scholars’ articles below.  Jesuitical Pope Francis wants to treat women like Mary’s lifeless and immobile (imbecile) man-made statues, obedient only to his papal dictatorial whims – and “’silent’ like Mary” - read more in our related article -- Middle Ages Vatican condemns New Age American Nuns: The Celestine Prophecy come true! Sisters in Crisis book mocks LCWR Sisters in Christ

It’s amazing how popes through the centuries have used either Mary or her Son Jesus as their “Divine Masks” to claim their “Divine Rights” so they can impose their totalitarian regimes and  obsolete doctrines and to get away scot-free from their Pope Crimes and Vatican Evils.  John Paul II for one was a master Vatican Deceiver when everywhere he went he’d say Totus Tuus Marie and all the while he was promoting serial heinous pedophile priest Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ into high posts at the Vatican, and while praying his papal Rosary, he never bothered to spend 5 minutes with one of Maciel's victims of his JP2 Army, read our related article here --Theology and John Paul II are heartless and together they made the immoral Fr. Marcial Maciel thrive  

The narcissistic ego of John Paul II can only match that of the Devil’s Ego, because he has usurped the Baby Jesus from the arms of his Mother Mary (statue) and put his fat ugly papal body covering Mary -- which only stupid Catholics would kneel down to and venerate such absurd statues which are false gods hideous like the Golden Calf in the story of Exodus, read and see the images here

The narcissism and grandiosity of John Paul II, Cardinal Bernard Law, Benedict XVI, and Bishop Roger Vangheluwe are nauseating and despicable

Irish PM blasts ‘narcissism’ of Vatican. The narcissism of John Paul II and the Vatican are one and the same 

Fr. Marcial Maciel's Swiss Bank accounts: Angelo Sodano with Carlos Slim´s help has set his nephew up in business with a swiss registered company

Below are three scholars’ articles about how the Holy See uses its status at the UN to obstruct the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women throughout the world.  The articles give supporting evidence on how the Vatican uses its distinctive position at the UN to affect a wide range of global issues, including international economic development, women’s status, population, and family planning.  With bold and highlight emphases:  
(1) The Holy See at the UN: A State or a Religion? 
(2) Playing Hardball Against Women’s Rights: The Holy See At The UN .   
(3) WHO creates demand for abortions. The truth so often suppressed: Vatican influence is promoting more abortions world wide.

The Holy See is the official name of the Vatican as a “country” which is so ironic because those “holy eyes” are constantly blind and they saw nothing but only cover-up evil such as the evils committed by thousands of priests of the JP2 Army – John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army who sodomized little boys (and girls) for more than half of the 20th century and John Paul II will now become the greatest saint in Christendom, read our related article -- Heil Satanas JP2 Patron Saint of Pedophiles, Pederasts Rapists-Priests! John Paul II is the same yesterday and today-- he cannot protect children 

.  If there are twin eyes of Satan on earth, he’s the “Father of lies” according to Jesus, the Holy See are the Devil’s Eyes on Earth!  While the Devil’s home is in Hell, his eyes and deceits rule through the Holy See.

Pope Francis has just announced his new “Vice-Pope” and so Vatican Pied Pipers are busy brainwashing and spreading more Vatican Deceits about the Vatican “Secretary of State” for (eight hundred only) 800 people population, his job really is to maintain all the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Vatican Wealth invested in secret Vatican Swiss Banks and usurped from poor countries all over the world, see news below.

Read our related articles:

Occupy The Vatican... like Occupy Wall Street 

 UN sets Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s records straight.

USA ambassador to Vatican - for what exactly? “Pray” with the pope in one office, in one basilica that equals “one country”?
The Hague is above Pope, Vatican, Religion. The Hague must prosecute Benedict XVI now to prove secular International Justice reigns over ALL Religions and Despots

 NCAA & Penn State more moral than Vatican. Sports is more moral than John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Vatican Titanic sinking in moral bankruptcy 
Vatican Last Tsar Benedict XVI resigns as Vatican Pontiff of Vatican Catholic Church. It’s deceitful to say “Roman Pontiff” of “Roman Catholic Church” is here

Billion Dollar Christ & Apostles in Red now playing in Vatican. Evil impact of Papal Conclave: epidemic violence against women & perpetuity of poor countries

 Pope Francis Top 10 Vatican Deceits. Francis cloned @3.13.13 inside Vatican Titanic as Jesuit Mask of Vatican Evils. “Bergoglio. Basura. Vos sos la dictadura.”

The Holy See at the UN: A State or a Religion?

The Roman Catholic Church uses its distinctive position at the UN to affect a wide range of global issues, including international economic development, women’s status, population, and family planning.
Editor’s note: This briefing paper from the US Center for Reproductive Rights calls into question the legitimacy of the Holy See’s status as a Non-Member State Permanent Observer at the United Nations, as relevant and revealing today as it was when the paper was first published in 2000.

The Roman Catholic Church is uniquely positioned to influence international policy-making. It speaks on issues of concern for its religious followers in numerous nations around the world. At the international level, the Roman Catholic Church uses its distinctive position at the United Nations to affect a wide range of global issues, including international economic development, women’s status, population, and family planning. Although the Roman Catholic Church pursues many admirable strategies towards poverty eradication and economic development, it undermines its own advocacy on these issues by taking positions that run counter to the equality and empowerment of women — one half of the world’s people. This briefing paper calls into question the legitimacy of the Holy See’s status as a Non-Member State Permanent Observer and illustrates how this status is used to obstruct women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights.
The Holy See’s status at the UN entitles it to many of the same privileges enjoyed by governments. Yet, the Holy See lacks a traditional citizenry of its own. The Holy See speaks at the UN not as a nation-state addressing the pressing concerns of its citizens, but as a religion seeking to exert its version of morality on Catholics and non-Catholics alike. All of the other religions of the world are entitled only to the limited privileges of non-governmental organizations within the UN. The Roman Catholic Church therefore enjoys a unique degree of international political leverage typically reserved for governments.[1] Furthermore, the Holy See’s status sets a precedent for allowing other religions this role within the UN — an institution of global governance that should remain neutral towards religion.


The Holy See serves as “the supreme organ of government of the [Catholic] Church,”[2] with the Pope designated as its head in the Code of Canon Law.[3] It is, by definition, a non-territorial religious entity. The Holy See consists of the Pope, the College of Cardinals, and the Roman Curia — the departments and ministries that assist the Pope in the government of the Church.[4] The Pope possesses supreme authority within the Church, and no one may appeal his decisions or decrees.[5] The Pope’s authority rests on moral and spiritual principles and is not enforced by civil penalties.[6]

Widely regarded as a “vassal” territory of the Holy See,[7] the Vatican City exists solely to provide a base for the central administration of the Roman Catholic Church. Only 0.44 square kilometers in size,[8] the Vatican City is the smallest area in the world that claims statehood.[9] Since its independence from Italy in 1929, the Vatican City has been under the “sovereignty of the Supreme Pontiff.”[10] However, the Vatican City depends on Italy for the provision of basic services including police patrol, criminal prosecution, water provision, communication, and transportation.[11] According to the Holy See Mission at the UN, the population of legal citizens of the Vatican City is 813, and women and girls comprise less than 12% of the population.[12]


The Holy See and Switzerland are the only two entities at the UN that have the unique status of Non-Member State Permanent Observer.[13] The practice of granting Non-Member Permanent Observer Status has “developed according to courtesy, practice and precedents.”[14] No provisions regarding such status exist in the UN Charter, the UN Convention on Privileges and Immunities,[15] or the General Assembly resolution that governs the Permanent Mission of Member States.[16] This absence of rules has generated a practice that is neither clear nor uniform.[17]

The two criteria used by the Secretary-General of the UN to determine eligibility for Permanent Observer status have been: (1) whether the State has membership in at least one specialized agency of the UN; and (2) whether the State is generally recognized by Members of the UN.[18] At the time the Holy See was admitted as a Non-Member State Permanent Observer in 1964, it met the first criterion for Permanent Observer status by maintaining delegates at multiple specialized agencies.[19] The second criterion, on the other hand, was not clearly established. If “general recognition” is defined as recognition by a majority of UN Members, the Holy See may have been incorrectly allowed to obtain Non-Member State Permanent Observer status. As of January 1, 1985, the Holy See maintained diplomatic relations with only 53 countries.[20] Therefore, it is unlikely that at the time its mission was established, the Holy See maintained relations with a majority (i.e. 56) of the then 112 Member States of the UN. Nevertheless, in 1964 Pope Paul VI succeeded in establishing the first Holy See “Permanent Observer” mission at the UN, and the Holy See became a Non-Member State Permanent Observer.[21]

The Possibility of UN Membership for the Vatican City

In 1944, the Roman Catholic Church made tentative inquiries regarding the eligibility of the Vatican City to become a Member State of the UN.[22] Article 4 of the UN Charter established the criteria for membership, stating that the applicant must: (1) be a State; (2) be peace-loving; (3) accept the obligations of the UN Charter; (4) be able to carry out these obligations; and (5) be willing to do so.[23]

In response to the Vatican City’s inquiries in the 1940s regarding possible admission to the UN as a Member State, United States Secretary of State Hull concluded that the Vatican City did not meet the requirements for membership.[24] Although the historical record is scant, there is some indication that other Member States also viewed the Vatican City as being ineligible for UN membership in 1944.[25]

Ambiguity arises from the fact that the UN does not provide the international community with a definition of the term “State.”[26] No formal membership application has ever been made by the Vatican City or, more recently, by the Holy See, although there appear to be no UN regulations preventing the Holy See from applying for such membership.[27]


Because the Holy See exists to govern the Roman Catholic Church worldwide, beyond the limits of the Vatican City, its legitimacy as a state is questionable. The Holy See has itself stated that its mission at the UN is “of a religious and moral character.”[28] In addition, the Holy See does not meet international legal definitions of statehood. According to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, “[t]he State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”[29] These four factual criteria for determining statehood are founded on principles agreed upon by a host of international law scholars and are consistent with the foreign relations laws of some nations.[30]

The Holy See does not meet all four of the criteria in the Montevideo definition. Other than the nominal population of the Vatican City, the Holy See does not have a “permanent population.” Rather, it governs a large group of voluntary religious followers who reside as citizens in other states. Similarly, the Holy See does not possess a “defined territory” other than the Vatican City, which serves only to host a small collection of religious and administrative buildings. As to the “government” criterion, the Holy See is itself the government of the Roman Catholic Church and, by definition, of the Vatican City. It cannot therefore be regarded as an entity that possesses a government. The only characteristic of a modern state that is attributable to the Holy See is its capacity to enter into relations with other states. The Holy See is party to international treaties, and it receives foreign envoys.[31]

In 1984, the United States Department of State under the Reagan administration announced that the U.S. and the Holy See had agreed to establish formal diplomatic relations for the first time.[32] Several members of Congress vocally opposed the establishment of formal ties with the Holy See.[33] In 1993 even the ultra-conservative U.S. Senator Jesse Helms called into question the Holy See’s status as a State, arguing that the U.S. should have no Ambassador to the Vatican City. “I remain persuaded that the United States has no business sending an ambassador to any religious entity.” Helms submitted a statement for the record asserting that “[m]aintaining diplomatic relations with the Vatican is clearly a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of separation between the institutions of church and state.”[34] He later urged President Clinton to revoke diplomatic relations with the Holy See.[35] Though such revocation is unlikely, the Justice Department has clarified that the Holy See need not be recognized as a state in order for the United States to conduct diplomatic relations with it.[36]


Privileges of Non-Member State Permanent Observers include the ability to sign and ratify UN-sponsored treaties, to participate in world conferences with full voting rights, to take part in discussions and decisions in the General Assembly, and to participate in various UN agencies, commissions, and committees.

International Treaties

Although the Holy See has the ability to sign and ratify international treaties, it has failed to establish a general commitment to international human rights norms. Despite its commitment to global economic development and poverty eradication, the Holy See has neglected to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[37] Furthermore, the Holy See has ratified neither the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights nor the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.[38] Only three UN human rights conventions have been ratified by the Holy See: the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990);[39] the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1969);[40] and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1956).[41]

The Holy See further limits its commitment to human rights by placing reservations on the limited number of treaties it has ratified. For example, the Holy See held that application of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees “must be compatible in practice with the special nature of the Vatican City State.”[42] In its reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Holy See asserted that it interprets the phrase “[f]amily planning education and services” to mean “only those methods of family planning which it considers morally acceptable.”[43] The Holy See also stated in its reservations that it interprets the Convention as safeguarding “the primary and inalienable rights of parents.”[44] The Holy See claimed that once ratified, the Convention “will safeguard the rights of the child before as well as after birth.”[45] Finally, the Holy See clarified that by acceding to the Convention, it does not intend to move away “from its specific mission which is of a religious and moral character.”[46]

General Assembly

As a Non-Member State Permanent Observer, the Holy See also participates on an ad hoc basis in General Assembly discussions and decisions. Pope Paul VI addressed the General Assembly on October 4, 1965,[47] as did Pope John Paul II in 1979 and 1995.[48] A representative of the Holy See addresses the General Assembly or one of its committees an average of 11 times each year.[49] The Holy See also participates in the Special Sessions of the General Assembly during the review and appraisal of conferences and summits.[50]

While exercising this privilege, Church officials have themselves illustrated the Holy See’s atypical role at the UN. Addressing the General Assembly, Pope John Paul II stated that the aim of the Holy See, through its participation in the “tasks and activities in the UN [is] very different from that of other states.”[51] The Holy See views its purpose at the UN as “bringing to the attention of the world the teaching of the Church.”[52] The Holy See acts as the “universal church . . . , [it] is not military or economic [but a] moral force.”[53] This admission of its role as a “universal church” is at odds with its status as a Non-Member State Permanent Observer.

UN Bodies

The Holy See participates in a variety of committees and commissions at UN offices in New York, Rome, Geneva, Paris, Vienna, Bonn, Kingston, and Nairobi.[54] The Holy See also participates in numerous UN agencies, including the UN High Commissioner on Refugees, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the UN Conference on Trade and Development,[55] and the World Health Organization.[56]

World Conferences

The Holy See has voted and actively participated in several UN world conferences, which rank among the foremost forums for international lawmaking. The UN generally grants widespread state access to participation at international conferences. General Assembly resolutions convening world conferences have invited “all States” to participate “in full, with full voting rights.”[57] The Holy See has participated in all major international conferences since 1989, including the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 (ICPD) and its five-year follow-up in 1999 (ICPD + 5); and the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing Conference) and its five-year follow-up in 2000 (Beijing + 5).[58]

Unlike non-governmental organizations, “states” have the ability to prevent consensus and stall the conference process. During the development of consensus agreements at recent world conferences, the Holy See has joined forces with a small group of conservative governments and radical, right wing organizations.[59] They have attempted to intervene and obstruct the goal of reaching consensus on legal, policy, and program reforms needed to further women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights.[60] Many of the reactionary policies pursued by the Holy See ultimately have the effect of denying women their human rights. The views advocated by the Holy See at the UN touch on issues that include the role of women in society, HIV/AIDS, contraception, abortion, sexual and reproductive health services, and adolescents.

• The Role of Women

According to the Catholic Church, a woman’s value is based on her status within the confines of the family. One member of the Holy See delegation to the UN asserted that “the work of women in the home is the basis for the happiness of the whole human race.”[61] Pope John Paul II stated that the “true advancement” of women requires recognition of “the value of their maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions.”[62]

In the midst of the ICPD preparations, Pope John Paul II sent a strong message with his beatification of two women as “models of Christian perfection.”[63] The Pope honored a woman who had insisted that her life be sacrificed, if necessary, for that of her unborn child; she died as a result of refusing an abortion that would have saved her life. The other woman honored had been married to an abusive husband who later abandoned her and their children. The Pope praised “her total fidelity to the commitment assumed in the sacrament of marriage and responsibilities deriving from it.”[64]

The Holy See does little to promote women in leadership positions. Of the three entities of the Holy See — the Pope, the College of Cardinals, and the Roman Curia — only the Roman Curia includes women, and to a very limited degree.[65] According to Canon Law, women are not capable of performing numerous religious functions. Significantly, women may not be ordained into the priesthood and are in turn barred from the posts of bishop, cardinal, and pope.[66] Within the Roman Catholic Church, women are consistently underrepresented even in those administrative, judicial, and directorial positions that do not require ordainment into the priesthood.[67] In particular, women are underrepresented on counsels that advise the Pope on issues of family and sexuality.[68] Women cannot vote because the Holy See extends suffrage only to cardinals.[69]

During ICPD and Beijing, the Holy See argued against the promotion of “individualism,” and it consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of the family — narrowly defined by the Holy See to include only traditional, nuclear families based on a marriage between husband and wife.[70] The Holy See’s report to the UN in preparation for Beijing declared that women do not have “an equality of roles and functions” and advised that the “specificity of women [be] safeguarded.”[71] During ICPD+5, the Holy See delegation advocated replacing the phrase “respect for women’s rights” in the consensus agreement with “respect for women’s status.”[72]


Despite the deadly HIV/AIDS pandemic and the worldwide acceptance of condom distribution and education as a strategy to reduce the likelihood of transmission, the Holy See has steadfastly refused to condone their use. In its reservations to the Beijing Platform for Action, the Holy See asserted that it “in no way” endorses condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.[73] During ICPD+5 the Holy See stood as virtually the only voice opposed to such programs. In fact, the Church goes so far as to oppose use of condoms between married couples when one partner is HIV-positive.[74] The Holy See initially attempted to remove the references to condoms in the consensus agreement at ICPD+5, and it later remained silent when the text, which included such references, was adopted.[75] Instead, the Holy See advocates “absolute avoidance” as a method for prevention of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmissible infections.[76]

• Contraception

In its reservations to the Beijing Platform for Action, the Holy See asserted that it “in no way endorses contraception”[77] and that it would only interpret a woman’s right to control her fertility as the “responsible use of sexuality within marriage.”[78]

At ICPD +5 the Holy See opposed the language favoring “women-controlled methods such as female condoms, emergency contraception, and under-utilized methods, such as vasectomy and male condoms.” It also sought to refer only to contraceptive methods “which are not against the law.”[79]

In the same year as ICPD+5, the Church released a statement regarding the provision of emergency contraception to Kosovar women who were raped by Serbian paramilitaries and security forces, claiming that providing these women with emergency contraception was equivalent to promoting abortion.[80] During the ICPD+5 negotiations, a member of the Holy See’s delegation argued against the use of emergency contraception for rape victims,[81] despite the fact that the World Health Organization classifies the emergency method not as an abortifacient, but as a safe contraceptive.[82] The Holy See succeeded in preventing any explicit mention of emergency contraception in the ICPD+5 consensus agreement.[83] Pope John Paul II stated previously that women raped in Bosnia should “accept the enemy” and make him “flesh of their own flesh.”[84]

• Abortion

At the ICPD and Beijing Conferences, the Holy See and its allies fought staunchly against the right of women to choose abortion. At ICPD the Holy See opposed the phrase “unsafe abortion” because of its implication that abortion ever could be safe.[85] “Unwanted pregnancy” is another phrase that the Holy See refused to accept, arguing that it implies that pregnancy is a negative experience, inconsistent with the notion of womanhood.[86] Reflecting the resulting compromise, the ICPD Programme of Action ultimately held that abortion should be safe where it is not against the law.[87]

In March 1995, in time for the Beijing preparatory meetings, the Pope issued a statement once again condemning abortion as “deliberate and direct killing.”[88] After denouncing such crimes as murder and genocide, the statement singled out abortion, declaring that “[a]mong all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable.”[89] The Pope went on to assert that protecting the woman’s health or ensuring a decent standard of living for other members of the family “can never justify” abortion.[90]

• Sexual and Reproductive Health Services

The Roman Catholic Church supports more than 300,000 health facilities throughout the world. The Church has repeatedly made clear its refusal to offer abortion and contraceptive services at those facilities.[91] The Holy See consistently opposes family planning services in low- and middle-income countries, despite the desire of many governments to raise the standard of living by allowing people to plan and space their children.[92] One member of the Holy See delegation to several UN Conferences condemned family planning as “the cancer of today’s world.”[93]

Another Holy See delegate called sexual education programs produced by the UN Population Fund “public pornography.”[94] In 1994, the year of ICPD, Pope John Paul II wrote a “Letter to the Family” announcing that the doctrine of the Church on abortion and contraception would never change.[95]

At the preparatory meeting for ICPD, the Holy See refused to recognize general concepts such as sexual and reproductive rights, fertility regulation, and family planning.[96] The Holy See did not join the consensus on the entire section of the Beijing Platform concerning health. It objected to the “totally unbalanced attention to sexual and reproductive health.”[97] When discussing the provision of sexual and reproductive health services at ICPD+5, the Holy See opposed the use of the term “couples and individuals” and stated that it would interpret this to include only “married couples and the individual man and woman who constitute the couple.”[98]

• Adolescents

The Holy See has consistently objected to the provision of sexual and reproductive health services for adolescents. At ICPD+5, the Holy See, determined to undermine the gains realized at ICPD for adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights, sought instead to secure greater recognition of “parental rights.” The Holy See and other conservative delegates introduced language that would allow parents to prevent their children from receiving sexual and reproductive health information.[99] One member of the Holy See’s delegation to ICPD+5 addressed the UN delegates five times in one hour in opposition to confidential sex counseling for adolescents.[100] A delegate from Mexico directly questioned the Holy See’s position, asking, “[d]oes the privacy of the confessional not extend to teens?”[101] In its statement following the ICPD+5 consensus agreement, the Holy See stipulated its understanding that the provision of adolescent reproductive health services would cover only those adolescents who are married.[102]


It is unlikely that the Holy See properly met the qualifications for Non-Member State Permanent Observer status in 1964, or that it can be considered a state today. Furthermore, the wisdom of granting this status at the UN to a religious body that manifestly does not have to face any of the problems that nation-states must face is dubious. True progress toward the elimination of global poverty and inequality must include a commitment to the realization of women’s rights and empowerment. With a dearth of women to raise their voices within the Vatican City, the Holy See has failed to demonstrate this commitment. Instead, the Holy See uses its status at the UN to obstruct the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women throughout the world.



See pdf at
Prof Milton P Siegel, who for 24 years was the assistant director general of the World Health Organization, speaks to N4CM Chairman Dr Stephen Mumford in 1992 to reveal that although there was a consensus that overpopulation was a grave public health threat and would be a major cause of preventable death not too far in the future, the Vatican successfully fought off the incorporation of family planning and birth control into official WHO policy. Available for public viewing for the first time.

Playing Hardball Against Women’s Rights: The Holy See At The UN

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon meets with Pope Francis at the Vatican. (Photo: Vincenzo Pinto / REUTERS)

During the Vatican conclave in March, while pundits in Rome spotlighted Pope Francis’s new-era penchant for buses and informal speech making, the old-era Vatican was hard at work at the United Nations, trying once again to take women’s rights out of the global dialogue. It failed, but was this a last attempt? Pope Francis, with his genial manner and his preference for the poor, has raised flutters of optimism among many Catholics hoping for a less arrogant and more modern church. That can’t happen too soon at the UN, where the Holy See has played serious hardball against women’s human rights for nearly 50 years.

The New York Times called the latest example of the Holy See’s interference at the 53rd meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women an “unholy alliance.” Working with Iran, Russia and others, Holy See representatives tried to delete document language asserting that religion, custom and tradition are no excuse for allowing violence against women. The commission ultimately rejected this effort and the final document stands as a precedent against invoking any of these reasons to justify human rights abuse.

The Holy See’s modus operandi has been to impose its conservative social ideology at the UN via relentless pressure—evident ever since it gained semi-official standing there in 1964. Pope Paul VI spelled out his privileged position at the UN the following year: his dual status as head of a church and head of state for the Holy See, he said, left him “independent of every worldly sovereignty” and made him the “bearer of a message for all mankind.” Nearly half a century later, the Roman Catholic church has global influence via the UN that is unique among the world’s religions. Only the Holy See and Palestine (since November 2012) hold Non-member State Permanent Observer status at the UN and most of its agencies. They have the right to speak, reply and circulate documents in the General Assembly, as well as take part in international conferences with “all the privileges of a state,” including the right to vote.

(Opus Dei puppet) Fr. Philip J. Bene, the Holy See’s legal attaché at the United Nations, at Rio+20

That means real power. Other religions or nongovernmental organizations must collar delegates in hallways and restrooms to make their points.

Further, UN conferences operate by consensus. Every word, every punctuation mark of meeting “outcome documents” is negotiated among delegates from up to 180 countries in closed-door sessions—often acrimonious, agonizing gatherings that go late into the night. And, as many who have dealt with the Holy See know to their frustration, it’s all but impossible to negotiate with someone who claims to be voicing divine will.

“They have their eyes on the prize,which is getting reproductive health off the global agenda,” said Alex Marshall,chief of UNFPA’s Services Branch, about his experience with the Holy See’s representatives. 
“They never stop, and they never give up.”

Holy See delegates are legendary for their tireless attention to detail at UN conferences, resulting in long-term reverberations. Because they prolonged negotiations to such an extent that the closure of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) was delayed by five days, the definition of reproductive healthcare in the outcome document omitted abortion services. The European Union later endorsed the ICPD Programme of Action wholesale, without amendments, so that including abortion services in resulting programs now requires the reinsertion of abortion services every time. Score a few for the pope.

Vatican emissaries routinely try to substitute women’s “dignity” for women’s “human rights” and to erase any reference to decision-making rights for adolescents. Pseudoscientific claims appear repeatedly in Holy See statements. Adrienne Germain, former president of the International Women’s Health Coalition, recalled in 2008 that the Holy See refused to endorse the use of condoms to prevent HIV at a 1999 gathering on the grounds that they are ineffective at blocking the virus. “I remember when people literally gasped” at that assertion, she said.

In 1995, at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Holy See delegates objected to the word “gender” as code for “a broad feminist rights strategy that includes abortion.” Other false assertions include statements that women are victimized by rights-based reproductive healthcare, or that studies show abortion harms a woman’s mental health. More recently, the falsehood that “as a matter of scientific fact, a new human life begins at conception” was entered in the minutes of a 2011 General Assembly session.

Other Vatican tactics are less subtle. Marshall recalled that in 1994, a Bolivian delegate to an ICPD preparatory meeting who was deemed insufficiently supportive of Vatican positions was “replaced with someone more compliant overnight, at the behest of the country’s nuncio”— the Holy See’s diplomatic representative to Bolivia. The conference chair refused to seat the replacement, but again, the failure didn’t faze the Holy See. Before the ICPD gathering, its secretary-general, Nafis Sadik, had an audience with Pope John Paul II, who “berated her for her unwillingness to steer the process in the right direction, as he saw it,” Marshall recalled in a 2010 Conscience article.

At the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Holy See Permanent Observer Archbishop Francis Chullikatt (left) consults with Paul Kelly, the delegate from Nicaragua, on Section V of the Rio+20 draft text, which included language on reproductive health.
Of course, all NGOs and governments are expected to press their views on others i n order to w i n consensus. “There’d be absolutely no problem if the church was lobbying like other religions and other pressure groups,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. “But their privileged position gives them an ear of governments that they shouldn’t be able to have.”

To states in which Catholic votes are critical such lobbying can be very persuasive. In 1994, the Vatican called in ambassadors from predominantly Catholic countries and lectured them on the proper positions on contraception and abortion to take at ICPD. John Paul II wrote to every head of state asserting that the ICPD draft would be a “serious setback for humanity” that would “condemn marriage to obsolescence.” His speeches called it “the snare of the devil.”

“The church is very influential in Latin America, and things like that indicate ‘We’re not going to support you in the next election,’” said Serra Sippel, director of the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) and a veteran of many battles over UN documents.

The pressure can backfire, however, Sippel said. At 2004 conferences in Puerto Rico and Chile, Latin American delegates who had some reservations about reproductive health language “stepped up and owned it any way because they were so annoyed” by Holy See pressure. “They said ‘Hey, we agreed to the ICPD and you’re not going to come down here and tell us what positions to take on this,’” she recalled.

Bene Madunagu, chair of the executive board at the Girls’ Power Initiative in Nigeria, was just as indignant. Bishops in Nigeria, she said, promote the status quo, “where talk about sex is taboo and talk about preventing unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases is forbidden.” In a statement to support Catholics for Choice’s initiative, The “See Change” Campaign, in 2000, she was blunt: “The role that the Roman Catholic church has played as an obstacle to AIDS education in Africa calls into question its moral right to a high status at the United Nations.”

At the same time, Amparo Claro, director of the Latin American and Caribbean Women’s Health Network, called it “entirely unacceptable that UN negotiations are influenced by exclusive and dogmatic ideologies and moralities permanently imposed on other members by a unique and privileged member.”

The old-era Holy See ignores such protests and continues to tell governments what positions to take. Guatemala, Honduras, Ireland, Malta and Poland are reliable Vatican allies, among others. As early as 1994, special Vatican envoys went to Tehran and Tripoli to enlist their support—to “sup with the devil,” as Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland put it—and alliances since then have included Iran and Libya as well as Syria, Egypt and other countries that do not support full human rights for women.

Roman Catholic theologian Dr. Daniel Maguire: “The Vatican from its unduly privileged perch in the United Nations along with the “Catholic” nations–now newly allied with conservative Muslim nations–managed to block reference to contraception and family planning at the United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.” (Source:

These countries got behind the Holy See’s efforts to exclude “forced pregnancy” from a list of war crimes proposed during the 1998 debate over setting up the International Criminal Court. They agreed that the Beijing Platform for Action did not express universal values but spoke only for disgruntled radical Western feminists. They have helped block efforts to extend human rights references to gays and lesbians, and at the 2012 Rio + 20 Conference on Sustainable Development fell in line behind the Holy See to exclude “sexual and reproductive” healthcare from areas of healthcare deserving particular attention in the outcome document.

Some of the work opposing sexual and reproductive rights is accomplished by UN allies, with the Holy See preferring to remain behind the scenes. Conservative religious NGOs disrupted March 2000 preparatory meetings for Beijing + 5, surrounding opponents to pray over them, according to a 2001 Conscience article. 

At the ICPD, unofficial Arabic translations of draft documents were circulated that insinuated the phrase “sexual health” was equivalent to promiscuity. Vatican representatives “don’t need to put out documents when their allies do a lot of that work,” Sippel said.

Marshall asserted that the new era for the Vatican may look very much like the old. “The new pope isn’t going to change that,” he said.
Joanne Omang is a novelist and former Washington Post reporter and editor.

WHO creates demand for abortions

The truth so often suppressed: Vatican influence is promoting more abortions world wide.

Editor’s note: This article by Donald A Collins, a long-time reproductive health advocate, is as relevant and revealing today as when it was first published by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review in 2004. Developed nations must support universal access to family planning, says a major report by the British Royal Society published on 26 April 2012, which was chaired by Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir John Sulston.

By Donald A Collins | 28 Jan 2004Pittsburgh Tribune Review
While all abortions at any stage in a pregnancy are evil to some, U.S. law currently accords “personhood” only after birth. However, all parties involved in what has become a bitter and divisive bone of social contention are agreed that fewer abortions would be a good thing.

Thus, when one encounters facts which support an increase in the number of abortions and in the deaths which attend pregnancies — now 600,000 such deaths per year worldwide — one might assume that the primary culprits in abortion promotion are those who most vigorously support the right to choose.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Having attended November’s International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics World Congress in Santiago, Chile, I came again face to face with the terrible truth so often suppressed: Vatican influence is promoting more abortions worldwide.

At this last conference, however, instead of the timid, off-the-record statements previously heard whispered to me in corridors by family planning expert insiders from India, China, Indonesia and others about the way this Vatican influence was exercised, those in attendance were treated to a brave documentation of this fact by an insider from the Vietnamese government, Dr. Do Trong Hieu.

From 'American Democracy and the Vatican' by N4CM Chairman Stephen D. Mumford, DrPH

His formal presentation was stunning in its public denouement of a Vatican-influenced branch of the World Health Organization (WHO), known in 1994 as the Human Reproduction Program (HRP). For years HRP has been able to wield inside power with many governments to stop the adoption of methods of family planning well-suited to the needs of these countries, including China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, as well as several in Latin America. HRP’s perfidy has never before been so publicly exposed by a developing country insider like Dr. Hieu, doubtless out of fear of retribution. It is a dreadful, sad story of abuse of power.

Some background

In 1994, I lead a group of 14 family planning experts to Vietnam to study the use of a non-surgical method of female sterilization called quinacrine sterilization, or QS. At that time, it had been accepted voluntarily by more than 50,000 Vietnamese women with no reported deaths or life-threatening complications.

From 'American Democracy and the Vatican' by N4CM Chairman Stephen D. Mumford, DrPH
His formal presentation was stunning in its public denouement of a Vatican-influenced branch of the World Health Organization (WHO), known in 1994 as the Human Reproduction Program (HRP). For years HRP has been able to wield inside power with many governments to stop the adoption of methods of family planning well-suited to the needs of these countries, including China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, as well as several in Latin America. HRP’s perfidy has never before been so publicly exposed by a developing country insider like Dr. Hieu, doubtless out of fear of retribution. It is a dreadful, sad story of abuse of power.

Some background

In 1994, I lead a group of 14 family planning experts to Vietnam to study the use of a non-surgical method of female sterilization called quinacrine sterilization, or QS. At that time, it had been accepted voluntarily by more than 50,000 Vietnamese women with no reported deaths or life-threatening complications.

Offered in clinical settings all over Vietnam, women opted for this method 11-to-1 over surgical sterilization, both offered free. The QS cost was low, something this poor nation could afford and which its women, many of whom we personally interviewed, desperately needed. By 2003 QS had been used by more than 150,00 women in 35 nations — some for over 25 years — with no reported deaths or life-threatening complications.

Just before the arrival of my expert study group in Vietnam in February 1994, this obscure, shadowy, but hugely powerful HRP group, had sent, in December 1993, a letter to Vietnam stating: “WHO experts and FDA officials have said that they would be surprised if quinacrine did not turn out to be carcinogenic.”
Further, was there a threat to cut off Vietnam’s financial aid from several international aid agencies if the highly successful QS program was continued? You be the judge. Read on.

Working against QS

This brave HRP accuser at November’s world congress was my study group’s same 1994 Vietnamese host, Dr. Do Trong Hieu, then head of the QS program as well as director of the Department of Maternal and Child Health and Family Planning at the Vietnamese Ministry of Health.

While he had previously verbally told me of this dastardly HRP perfidy, last fall in Santiago Dr. Hieu presented a paper on “The Future of QS in Vietnam.” From the paper: “By February 1994, we had determined that this HRP statement (against QS) could not be substantiated.”

However, Hieu continued, “Immediately, in the hallways of the ministry, several threatening rumors from international and U.N. agencies were heard: If the QS program is resumed, support for family planning in Vietnam could be suspended/withdrawn.”

Further, Hieu stated: “Ministry officials feared that international bilateral programs would terminate their financial support to Vietnam (especially when WHO and UNFPA departed). The decision was made not to resume our highly popular QS program.”

So, in Vietnam a principal method of birth control is now abortion.

Vietnam has achieved an average completed family size of 2.3 children. However, to get there, women have had to rely on abortion at a rate of 3.5 times that seen in the U.S. Nice going, HRP.

At this same Santiago meeting, Hieu also confirmed to me that this perfidy on the part of HRP and the failure of others to question its authority would over time cost more than 40,000 lives and access by women to a safe, reliable economical method for all these intervening years.

The Vatican connection? The head of the HRP who sent the anti-QS letter to Vietnam in December 1993 was Dr. Giuseppe Benegiano, a Roman obstetrician/gynecologist whose father was Pope Paul VI’s dentist. He was recruited for this sensitive post from a Catholic university in Rome.

‘Devious efforts’

Benegiano has made every possible effort to keep a highly favorable collection of 25 QS studies from 14 countries covering more than 40,000 QS users from arriving at the Chilean meeting. How? In the form of what became a enthusiastically received supplemental journal issue officially invited by the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetric. Fortunately, Benegiano’s devious efforts were thwarted by strong protests from journal personnel.

Additionally, knowledgeable officials from the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Population Council told me that HRP attacks on new family planning advances had been going on for decades.

Noted Hieu in his Santiago paper, “The government is (still) not free to implement the finding of its own risk benefit assessment.” He poignantly asked me, “Who will pay for this needless loss of women’s lives?”

No one has yet, but now it is public knowledge about who is to blame. More shocking than the Vietnam story alone must be the coercion privately reported to me at this meeting by other respected experts from bigger developing nations who knew of similar pressure by this HRP group at WHO on India (population now over 1 billion) and Indonesia (now over 234 million). 

Applying the same ratio of 40,000 likely deaths projected this past decade in Vietnam (population now over 81 million), we can logically infer that there could be over 115,000 such deaths in Indonesia, and perhaps as many in India due to HRP’s unfounded attacks on QS. The connection remains relentlessly accurate: Less family planning equals more abortions, more deaths, and more unwanted children. And, ergo, more terrorism.

Used by permission of the author.
Former US Navy officer, banker and venture capitalist, Donald A. Collins, a free lance writer living in Washington, DC., has spent over 40 years working for women’s reproductive health as a board member and/or officer of numerous family planning organizations including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Guttmacher Institute, Family Health International and Ipas. Yale under graduate, NYU MBA.
Prof Milton P Siegel, who for 24 years was the assistant director general of the World Health Organization, speaks to N4CM Chairman Dr Stephen Mumford in 1992 to reveal that although there was a consensus that overpopulation was a grave public health threat and would be a major cause of preventable death not too far in the future, the Vatican successfully fought off the incorporation of family planning and birth control into official WHO policy. Available for public viewing for the first time.

How Religion’s Demand for Obedience Keeps Us in the Dark Ages
The most fervent advocates of religion in the modern world are also the most deeply inculcated with the mindset of command and obedience, which has dangerous consequences.
By Adam Lee | 19 March 2012AlterNet

For the vast majority of human history, the only form of government was the few ruling over the many. As human societies became settled and stratified, tribal chiefs and conquering warlords rose to become kings, pharaohs and emperors, all ruling with absolute power and passing on their thrones to their children. To justify this obvious inequality and explain why they should reign over everyone else, most of these ancient rulers claimed that the gods had chosen them, and priesthoods and holy books obligingly came on the scene to promote and defend the theory of divine right.

It’s true that religion has often served to unite people against tyranny, as well as to justify it. But in many cases, when a religious rebellion overcame a tyrant, it was only to install a different tyrant whose beliefs matched those of the revolutionaries. Christians were at first ruthlessly persecuted by the Roman Empire, but when they ascended to power, they in turn banned all the pagan religions that had previously persecuted them. Protestant reformers like John Calvin broke away from the decrees of the Pope, but Calvinists created their own theocratic city-states where their will would reign supreme.

Similarly, when King Henry VIII split England away from the Catholic church, it wasn’t so he could create a utopia of religious liberty; it was so he could create a theocracy where his preferred beliefs, rather than the Vatican’s, would be the law of the land. And in just the same way, when the Puritans fled England and migrated to the New World, it wasn’t to uphold religious tolerance; it was to impose their beliefs, rather than the Church of England’s.

It’s only within the last few centuries, in the era of the Enlightenment, that a few fearless thinkers argued that the people should govern themselves, that society should be steered by the democratic will rather than the whims of an absolute ruler. The kings and emperors battled ferociously to stamp this idea out, but it took root and spread in spite of them. In historical terms, democracy is a young idea, and human civilization is still reverberating from it — as we see in autocratic Arab societies convulsed with revolution, or Chinese citizens rising up against the state, or even in America, with protesters marching in the streets against a resurgence of oligarchy.

But while the secular arguments for dictatorship have been greatly weakened, the religious arguments for it have scarcely changed at all. Religion is very much a holdover from the dark ages of the past, and the world’s holy books still enshrine the ancient demands for us to bow down and obey the (conveniently unseen and absent) gods (like the invisible flesh of Christ in the Host of the Eucharist), and more importantly, the human beings who claim the right to act as their representatives. It’s no surprise, then, that the most fervent advocates of religion in the modern world are also the most deeply inculcated with this mindset of command and obedience.

We saw this vividly in recent weeks with the controversy over birth control. As polls and surveys make clear, the overwhelming majority of American Catholics use contraception and in all other ways live normal, modern lives. They mostly just ignore the archaic bluster of the bishops. But the Pope and the Vatican hierarchy conduct themselves publicly as if nothing had changed since the Middle Ages; as if there were billions of Catholics who’d leap to obey the slightest crook of their finger.

The attitude the Vatican displays toward Catholic laypeople is perfectly summed up in a papal encyclical from 1906, titled “Vehementer Nos”:

The Scripture teaches us, and the tradition of the Fathers confirms the teaching, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, ruled by the Pastors and Doctors — a society of men containing within its own fold chiefs who have full and perfect powers for ruling, teaching and judging. It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.
An even more breathtakingly arrogant expression of this idea comes from New Advent, the official Catholic theological encyclopedia. Watch how it addresses that whole embarrassing Galileo episode:

[I]n the Catholic system internal assent is sometimes demanded, under pain of grievous sin, to doctrinal decisions that do not profess to be infallible…. [but] the assent to be given in such cases is recognized as being not irrevocable and irreversible, like the assent required in the case of definitive and infallible teaching, but merely provisional…To take a particular example, if Galileo who happened to be right while the ecclesiastical tribunal which condemned him was wrong, had really possessed convincing scientific evidence in favour of the heliocentric theory, he would have been justified in refusing his internal assent to the opposite theory, provided that in doing so he observed with thorough loyalty all the conditions involved in the duty of external obedience.

To translate the church’s legalisms into plain language, what this is saying is that it’s OK to doubt something the church teaches, but only if you keep quiet about that doubt and outwardly obey everything the church authorities tell you, acting as if your doubt didn’t exist. And if the church teaches that something is an infallible article of faith, even that ineffective option is taken away: you’re required to believe it without question or else face eternal damnation.

Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order, wrote that believers should “always be ready to obey [the church] with mind and heart, setting aside all judgment of one’s own.” To explain just how absolute he thought this obedience should be, he used a vivid analogy:

That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.

Nor is it just from the Catholic side of the aisle where we hear these pronouncements. Even though Protestants don’t have one pope to rule them all, they still believe that following your betters is essential. Here’s a statement to that effect from the esteemed apologist C.S. Lewis, from his book The Problem of Pain:

But in addition to the content, the mere obeying is also intrinsically good, for, in obeying, a rational creature consciously enacts its creaturely role, reverses the act by which we fell, treads Adam’s dance backward, and returns.

According to Lewis, obedience is “intrinsically good.” In other words, it’s always a good thing to do as you’re told, no matter what you’re being told to do or who’s telling you to do it! It doesn’t take much imagination to picture the moral atrocities that could result from putting this idea into practice.
Another influential Christian writer and one of the intellectual fathers of the modern religious right, Francis Schaeffer, put the same thought — the same demand for mental slavery — in even blunter terms:

I am false or confused if I sing about Christ’s Lordship and contrive to retain areas of my own life that are autonomous. This is true if it is my sexual life that is autonomous, but it is at least equally true if it is my intellectual life that is autonomous — or even my intellectual life in a highly selective area. Any autonomy is wrong.

Just to prove that none of these are flukes, here’s one more quote, this time from Christian evangelical pastor Ray Stedman, excerpted from his sermon titled “Bringing Thoughts Into Captivity”:

I have noticed through the years that the intellectual life is often the last part of a Christian to be yielded to the right of Jesus Christ to rule. Somehow we love to retain some area of our intellect, of our thought-life, reserved from the control of Jesus Christ. For instance, we reserve the right to judge Scripture, as to what we will or will not agree with, what we will or will not accept… [Disagreeing with any part of the Bible] represents a struggle with the Lordship of Christ; his right to rule over every area of life, his right to control the thought-life, every thought taken captive to obey him.

Nor is the demand for mindless obedience confined to Christianity. Here’s how one Jewish rabbi explained the rationale for the kosher dietary laws, recounted in Richard Dawkins’ essay “Viruses of the Mind”:

That most of the Kashrut laws are divine ordinances without reason given is 100 percent the point. It is very easy not to murder people. Very easy. It is a little bit harder not to steal because one is tempted occasionally. 

So that is no great proof that I believe in God or am fulfilling His will. But, if He tells me not to have a cup of coffee with milk in it with my mincemeat and peas at lunchtime, that is a test. The only reason I am doing that is because I have been told to so do. It is something difficult.

In other words, the kosher laws have no reason or justification, and that’s a good thing, because they teach people the habit of unquestioning obedience, which should be encouraged. This uncannily resembles a piece of parenting advice from Stephen Colbert, who satirically wrote that “Arbitrary rules teach kids discipline: If every rule made sense, they wouldn’t be learning respect for authority, they’d be learning logic.” Religious authorities like this rabbi are making the exact same argument in all seriousness! And then, of course, there’s Islam, whose very name is Arabic for “submission.”

The social scientist Jonathan Haidt has identified what he calls the five foundations of morality: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Surveys from all over the world find that self-identified conservatives put far more emphasis on the last three, two of which are fundamental to a worldview based on obedience and submission. The implied similarity between conservatism and fundamentalist religion is too obvious to ignore, particularly in America, where the conservative political party is dominated by an especially regressive and belligerent strain of evangelical Christianity.

And like political conservatism in general, many religious rules are actively destructive to human liberty and happiness. Christian church leaders claim we should prohibit same-sex marriage and abortion and restrict access to birth control; ultra-Orthodox Jewish zealots want to erase women from public life; Islamic theocracies want to make it illegal to criticize or dissent from their beliefs. If moral commands could only be backed up by appeals to reason or human good, these unfounded and harmful laws would vanish overnight. Instead, the people who make these rules and want us to obey them claim that they’re messengers of the will of God, and thus no further justification is needed. It bears emphasizing that this is the exact same argument made by ancient monarchs and tyrants, all of whom used this idea to justify atrocious cruelty.

Those ancient monarchs were toppled because they proved, despite their lofty claims of divine right, that they were no better or wiser or more suited to rule than any other human being. This is a lesson from history that deserves wider attention in the modern world. Like them, religious conservatives claim that they’re passing along God’s ideas, and thus that we should obey them without critical challenge and questioning. This idea has always had disastrous consequences in the past — why should we expect anything different this time?

In sharp contrast to the religious and conservative worldview of obedience and submission, the worldview of freethinkers and progressives at its best is one that exalts freedom and liberty — freedom to make our own choices, freedom of the mind to travel and explore wherever it will. These are our commandments: Think for yourself and don’t blindly bow down to the claims of another. Exercise your own best judgment. Ask questions and investigate whether what you’ve been taught is true. There have been countless wars and devastations because people were too eager to subordinate their will and conscience to the ruling authorities, but as Sam Harris says, no atrocity was ever committed because people were being too reasonable, too skeptical, or too independently minded. If anything, human beings have always been too eager to obey and to subordinate their will to others. The more we throw off that ancient and limiting mindset, the more freedom we have to think, act and speak as we choose, the more humanity as a whole will prosper.

The Dark Ages Sorcery of the Flesh of Christ:  how the Vatican and Catholic Church make Popes and priests – like gods – who can clone and re-create God’s flesh in the Eucharist

The “Holy Father“ Pope and his copy-cat “holy fathers”  Catholic priests cannot clone Dolly the sheep and therefore they cannot clone Christ either, read our related article, OC Diocese buys Crystal Cathedral as flesh-factory of Christ... for wealthy God-flesh-eating Catholics
Well, the black magic holy words of a team of “holy priests” cannot clone Christ the Son God either, read about the Divine Trinity
Please take a look at the worse Roman Catholic Church pedophile priests attacks against more than 15,500 Americans … compared to the September 11, 2001 attacks against 3,000 Americans at the Twin Towers in New York.

Victims in USA - Attackers - Responsible Leaders

Pearl Harbor - 3,000 victims - 170 planes - Admiral Yamamoto

WTC & 9/11 attacks - 3,000 victims - 19 Muslims - Osama bin Laden

Priest pedophilia - 15,736 victims - 6,000 pedophile priests covered-up John Paul II, Benedict XVI Ratzinger, Opus Dei = Vatican Trinity (together with Cardinals, Bishops and Vicars worldwide)

9/11 victims 3,000. JP2 Army 100,000s. May Day: both Hitler and bin Laden Announced Dead on May 1 on John Paul II Beatification Day B-Day   

Look deeply into this image of Our Lady of Guadalupe defending and protecting children from the Serpent  ... compared to Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Cardinals, Bishops who coverd-up pedophile priests The names of the transferring or covering up Bishops and Cardinals are: Roll Call Please!
The Hague: Full text Criminal Charges against Dr. Joseph Ratzinger, Pope of the Roman Catholic Church
The black belt means she is pregnant
The womb of the Immaculate Conception of Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe carried Jesus this way


 The cloning process that produced Dolly


1-MINUTE  black magic of the cloning of Christ by sinful Vatican popes and priests 

Our comment: Transubstantiation or the Mass is a recent development . St. Peter and St. Paul and the Apostles never celebrated Mass and never “transubstantiation” the bread into the flesh of Christ, what they did was to preach about Christ. The Mass was a slow development from the 12th century through various liturgical reforms until the 20th century. It was only in 1215 at the Fourth Council of the Lateran that the Mass began to take form and in 1551 at the Council of Trent that transubstantiation became what it is today. The Vatican has come to use it as its main crux of power on earth deceiving Catholics and peoples of all faiths that only Popes and men-priests have the exclusive power to transubstantiate God’s flesh. Because of the Mass, the Vatican has gotten away with all kinds of heinous crimes, e.g. the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of women and witches “For the sake of the Eucharist” and because of the shortage of priests, John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger-Benedict XVI, the Opus Dei who controls the Vatican, the Cardinals and Bishops shuffled pedophile priests from one parish to another. The rest is history: the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army committed Holy ES Eucharist-and-Sodomy of Biblical proportions see the John Paul II Millstone

In the name of Hail Mary, we dare challenge and defy the Magisterium: No words pronounced by any finite-man can create an infinite-God! No words of the Pope and priests can re-create or re-incarnate Christ’s flesh. The words of sinful popes and priests are powerless and can never create God! Only Mary the Immaculate Conception deserved to bear God in her womb. No evil pope and evil priests is worthy to touch and hold God in their evil hands. The words of popes and Cardinals, Bishops and priests are mere clashing-cymbals of St. Paul see John Paul II the Great clashing cymbal of St. Paul

See Benedict XVI to beatify John Paul II is “brought to nothing” by St. Paul
No matter how we look at it, finite-man cannot create an infinite-God. Man can never create God’s flesh. Not in in-vitro fertilization of the scientific laboratories. Not in the sacred altars of holy Roman Catholic churches which by the way were the same pedophile altars of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army See the John Paul II Millstone

Rome, call us heretics and we don’t care because in Boston and in America, we have freedom of speech. It was our freedom of speech that got rid of criminal-Cardinal Bernard Law and sent him packing out of our sight and out of our land. But only you, Rome, you the Roman Catholic Church a.k.a. Magisterium would glorify criminals like Cardinal Bernard Law and John Paul II. No other American state has been able to replicate our courage as Bostonians who got rid of the first Cardinal caught guilty of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army in America. Yes, we caught the first SS officer of the Third Reich of the Roman Catholic Church … but he went into glorious exile in Rome because only in the Catholic Church are criminals glorified See The John Paul II Millstone John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army expands into Ireland &John Paul is elevated as "Venerable"... only in the Catholic Church are criminals glorified

 Pope Francis  words cannot reincarnate Jesus Christ in the Eucharist -- it is the biggest Vatican HOAX!!!  

Benedict XVI, from the Chair of Peter, thinks his papal letter will heal the victims and solve the problem of clergy abuse in Ireland. The fact is, Benedict XVI’s words are powerless.  NO POPE has ever healed anyone. As this picture shows,


They came sick and they left sick.

There is NO "Apostolic" authority or succession here,

for NO Pope has EVER been able to heal like Peter or Paul did.

Opus Dei Goliath-bully Bill want to propagate Catholic Medieval Doctrine that all crimes of JP2 Army of pedophile priests are already forgiven and forgotten under the Sacrament of Confession that protects criminals and persecutes their victims, read here

BOYCOTT Oratory of Saint Joseph! CANDLES to giant Zeus statues of St. Joseph and Brother Andre cannot protect children from CSC pedophiles

Vatican Billions: its history, sources, and assets today worldwide. BOYCOTT the Vatican Museum and boycott ALL donations to the Vatican Catholic Church Reign of Terror  ).  . 

No comments: